By Ryan Tracy and Brent Kendall
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department submitted a proposal to
Congress on Wednesday to curb longstanding legal protections for
internet companies such as Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.'s Google
and Twitter Inc. and force them to shoulder more responsibility for
managing content on their sites.
The proposal advances two main goals the Trump administration
and the department outlined in June: encouraging online platforms
to actively address illicit conduct and manage content on their
sites in fair and consistent ways.
The department refined its proposal in the intervening months
based on feedback from market participants and other stakeholders
such as victims' rights groups. As a result of that process, the
department made some changes, including clarifying that internet
companies would have immunity when they take down material that
promotes violent extremism or self-harm, a senior department
official said.
President Trump, discussing social media companies at a White
House meeting Wednesday with Republican state attorneys general,
described the proposal as part of a series of "concrete legal steps
to protect an open internet and a free society." At issue is
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which gives
internet platforms broad latitude to police their sites and shields
them from legal liability related to users' actions, except in
relatively narrow circumstances.
Mr. Trump also injected an element of election-year politics
over social-media companies' handling of posts from conservatives
and from him, some of which have been removed or labeled as
misleading after they were deemed to violate the platforms'
policies. "We are watching them very closely during this election
cycle," he added.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), who helped write the legal
protections targeted by the administration's proposal, said
Republicans are trying to "work the refs ahead of the election" by
threatening social media companies with retribution if they censor
or fact-check content. The legislative proposal is "a warmed-over
mishmash of existing Republican proposals to force private
companies to host lies, misinformation, hate speech and other slime
online," he said in a statement.
While the legislation is unlikely to pass during a busy and
contentious election year, Congress could take up the proposal or
others like it next year. Both Democrats and Republicans say they
want to review the legal protections internet companies enjoy,
though they have differing concerns. Democratic presidential
candidate Joe Biden called in January for revoking Section 230
altogether, though he hasn't outlined if or how he would replace
it. He says platforms need to do more to curb the spread of false
information.
Attorney General William Barr, seated next to the president
Wednesday, urged the state law-enforcement officials to investigate
whether social media platforms deceive users, even if federal law
doesn't change. "When they engage in unfair and deceptive
practices, state AGs can be the tip of the spear," he said.
The tech industry has opposed efforts to change or repeal
Section 230, saying it has enabled internet platforms to blossom
without fear of excessive lawsuits.
"Good-faith moderation efforts that remove things like
misinformation, platform manipulation, and cyberbullying would all
result in lawsuits under this proposal," said a statement Wednesday
from Elizabeth Banker, deputy general counsel for the Internet
Association trade group, whose members include Facebook, Twitter
and others. "Even commenting on another individual's post could
open an online forum or individual to a flood of litigation."
The proposal would remove Section 230 legal immunity when online
platforms don't live up to certain standards. For example, they
could lose legal protections if they facilitate criminal activity
or know of unlawful conduct but don't restrict and report it. They
could also face liability if they don't spell out
content-moderation practices and follow them consistently,
including by explaining the basis for decisions to restrict users'
access.
The proposal also wouldn't confer immunity to platforms in cases
of online child exploitation and sexual abuse, terrorism or
cyberstalking. Those carve-outs are needed to allow victims to seek
redress, the department has said.
Mr. Wyden has been less open to reviewing Section 230 than some
other Democrats, including Mr. Biden and House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, who said in a New York Times interview this week that House
Democrats were looking at Section 230 legislation. Representatives
of the Biden campaign and Mrs. Pelosi had no immediate comment on
the Trump administration's proposal.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), chair of a House subcommittee
with jurisdiction over the issue, said the administration "has
properly diagnosed the illness, but its prescription is
lacking."
The proposal appeared aimed at winning support from Republicans
on Capitol Hill, since it included aspects of previous GOP
proposals, including one from Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.). In
an op-ed in the Washington Examiner Wednesday, Ms. Blackburn wrote:
"The social chaos that pervades today's online world is no longer
compatible with a standard that unintentionally insulates content
moderators from accountability for censoring speech they
'personally object' to. The only way to break this cycle is to
update Section 230's standards to reflect 2020's realities."
Tech companies, which came under intense scrutiny over how
Russian actors used their platforms to spread misinformation before
and after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, say they don't
manage content based on political considerations. This year
social-media companies have shifted from a hands-off approach to a
more active one toward Mr. Trump's conduct on social media. Twitter
in May applied a fact-checking notice to a post about voter fraud
by the president, a first.
Days later Twitter attached a notice to another post by Mr.
Trump about violent protests in Minneapolis in response to the
killing of George Floyd while in police custody. The post violated
the company's rules about glorifying violence, the notice said.
Facebook left untouched a similar post about the protests,
calling it political speech, but later clashed with Mr. Trump when
it removed some Trump campaign ads and some of the president's
statements about the coronavirus.
Days after Twitter's move in May, Mr. Trump signed an executive
order pushing federal agencies to take a more active role in
regulating how online platforms police content. The tech industry
has said the move would exceed the agencies' authority under
current law. The Federal Communications Commission is reviewing
public comments on that initiative.
Separate from the debate over Section 230, large tech companies
are also facing scrutiny in Washington over their market power. The
Trump administration is pursuing antitrust investigations into
Google and Facebook, which could result in lawsuits this year.
The administration's moves to target Section 230 don't have
direct consequences for social-media companies in the near term.
However, the actions raise the odds of a future crackdown while
also casting Mr. Trump as a defender of conservatives against tech
firms that Republicans say operate with a liberal bias.
"Online censorship goes far beyond the issue of free speech.
It's also one of protecting consumers and ensuring they are
informed of their rights and resources to fight back under the
law," White House spokesman Judd Deere said before the president's
Wednesday meeting with Republican state attorneys general. "State
attorneys general are on the front lines of this issue, and
President Trump wants to hear their perspectives."
Members of Congress have proposed their own ideas to narrow tech
firms' legal immunity. A bill introduced earlier this month by
Republican senators including Ms. Blackburn seeks to restrict
companies from claiming immunity because they deemed content
"objectionable," requiring them to instead meet a more specific
standard. The Justice Department's proposal has a similar
provision.
Another bipartisan proposal, termed the "EARN IT Act," could
open the companies up to lawsuits from survivors of online abuse by
giving the victims legal recourse if the companies don't "earn"
Section 230 immunity by following reasonable practices for dealing
with harmful content.
Democrats, for their part, say GOP accusations of political bias
by tech companies are unfounded, pointing out that conservative
content is widely shared on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms.
But they agree Section 230 needs review, and top Democrats on
Capitol Hill have said they plan to discuss the matter in the
coming months.
Alex Leary contributed to this article.
Write to Ryan Tracy at ryan.tracy@wsj.com and Brent Kendall at
brent.kendall@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
September 23, 2020 19:10 ET (23:10 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024